On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:43:13 +0200
Steffen Maier <maier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > - TP_printk("[%s] %d", __entry->comm, __entry->nr_rq)
> > + TP_printk("[%s] %d %s", __entry->comm, __entry->nr_rq,
> > + __entry->explicit ? "Sync" : "Async")
> > );
> >
> > /**
>
> This entire hunk does not seem related to this patch description.
> Also, I'm not sure trace-cmd and perf et al. could format it accordingly.
You mean the "?:" operation? trace-cmd and perf can handle it fine.
Just look at the trace event irq_handler_exit:
print fmt: "irq=%d ret=%s", REC->irq, REC->ret ? "handled" : "unhandled"
# trace-cmd record -e irq_handler_exit
# trace-cmd report
<idle>-0 [001] 856960.382767: irq_handler_exit: irq=29 ret=handled
<idle>-0 [001] 856961.745640: irq_handler_exit: irq=29 ret=handled
<idle>-0 [001] 856961.865762: irq_handler_exit: irq=29 ret=handled
-- Steve
